BunWat wrote: "Rivka, different universities have different numbering systems. "

Of course! I'm on a registrar listserv that recently had a few discussions about course numbering. Can't recall any mention of numbering that indicated who the instructor was. Or did you just mean that the .num indicated different sections? Because they're most often sequential in that case.

SUSANNA! I am thoroughly disgusted and appalled that you would think MY course, Taking Umbrage 901.3 could be taught by that imposter Dolores Jane Umbridge. Thanks for the condescension!

That's an entirely different course. The labs are truly terrifying.

Will Taking Umbrage be taught by Dolores Umbrage?

Heeee!! Isaiah you tempt me.

Rivka, different universities have different numbering systems.

Bunny, you underestimate me.

Taking Umbrage is to be a six-hour course this semester, with 3 hours of lab. That makes it Taking Umbrage 901.3 or -- for those who have already taken that course, Fabricating Dissent 903.3.

Not The Michael, I know my approval or lack thereof is not worth a whit, but I find your last post very reasonable and honest. I think it's a good perspective on the issues as a whole:

In the end, it doesn't matter to me because it's not as big a deal as much of the discussion would imply and nothing and no one is going to change what they do because of any of it.

Couldn't have said it better myself, and I'll be the first to agree that GR controversies seem to accrue a gravity fantastically outsized in relation to their relevance. I think it's a consequence of having too many bored people with internet access that are far too intimate with four-syllable words.

In the end, there's obviously no danger that GoodReads is going to executively limit or constrain the content of the review box, outside of its private conception of obscenity. And this whole thread is really, in my mind, just a collective raise-of-the-eyebrows by some of us that are surprised that anyone would ever want such a constraint.

Bun, I am a college registrar (among other things). I have never heard of numbering courses that way!

The .7 and .3 are references to which professor is teaching the course. If you want to study Taking Umbrage with Isaiah you would sign up for .3 but if you wanted to work with Billy it would be .2, and so on.

Michael, thank you for this: RBPTMOMNHATDWTBTHTBAT for short. I really needed the laugh today.

BunWat wrote: "Barking at strangers 105.7. Must have completed Taking Umbrage 101.3 to enroll."

Are those supposed to be course numbers or radio stations?

This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "David wrote: No sense of outrage here . . . but thanks for the condescension anyway.

Clearly, there's plenty of condescension to go around.

At this point, I think we should just stop calling them..."

My "joking" often comes across as "condescending", or something equally unsavory, I'm forget I'm not sitting around with my friends. I'm working on it.

Your post is pretty much exactly what I would have written if I wasn't being a smart ass.

David wrote: No sense of outrage here . . . but thanks for the condescension anyway.

Clearly, there's plenty of condescension to go around.

At this point, I think we should just stop calling them book reviews and start calling them "Random blog posts that may or may not have anything to do with the book they happen to be attached to" (RBPTMOMNHATDWTBTHTBAT for short) since that is a more accurate description of what some are advocating.

The question was posed: "why do you care?" referring to, why does one care about what other people are posting as reviews. That's a very good question, and I find, for myself, I don't have a clear answer.

I don't know why I care (and I can't speak for anyone else). Perhaps it's part of an internal organizational imperative that I want things such as reviews vs. other writings "categorized" in some proper way, not mixed together. Perhaps it's because I want to be able to find actual useful reviews for a book without having to skim through highly-rated (due to amusement value) but off-topic stuff (the vast majority of the garbage reviews, i.e., "It's awesome" or "It sucks" or "Liked it" shouldn't end up high on any review ranking list so by the time you reach them you can assume there aren't better ones hidden below). Perhaps it's because I'd like to be able to find and enjoy these off-topic amusing reviews without having to stumble across them by accident, but instead prefer that they be gathered in one place to browse at my leisure. (In fact, I've never personally stumbled across any of these reviews, EXCEPT through discussions in this group).

None of these feels like a particularly good reason and I'm not sure if any of them are even partly correct.

So, you know what, I find that I actually don't care. I put out some ideas for community discussion as an extension of a conversation: some agreed, some disagreed, and some misinterpreted and made/implied accusations of censorship, lack of a sense of humor, and fascism (Note: blatant hyperbole alert). In the end, it doesn't matter to me because it's not as big a deal as much of the discussion would imply and nothing and no one is going to change what they do because of any of it.

(The original issue, i.e., the "scandalous" photo, has already been dealt with in what appears to be a largely mutually satisfactory way to most involved, and has actually been tangential to the main thread, at least as far as my own personal focus was concerned)

Isaiah wrote: "Would you rather have us all join a paint-by-numbers course at the local city college?...

They have those?!? Awesome. I can't force you, but if you sign up, I will. I'll even drive if anyone wants to carpool.

Hooray, Jessica! A level and reasonable response. Sorry if things get sensitive in here. Goodreaders obviously aren't the type of people not to say what they really feel...

Barking at strangers 105.7. Must have completed Taking Umbrage 101.3 to enroll.

Will we get credit?

Can it be an online course?

I think book reviews on GR is a pretty lame way to artistically express yourself, but hey, go at it.

Maybe you spend your days writing etudes and painting the Sistine Chapel, Billy, but some of us work in highly technical fields and yet take great satisfaction in the verbal, and place high value on a secondary community in which people express themselves in vibrant, clever ways, involving plays on language, personal commentaries on literature, the intertextuality of books as well as pointless conversation threads, images, and perhaps even audio and video. To some of us that brings great joy. We don't expect our efforts to be published, rewarded, or admired by some febrile critic with sleep apnea. The expression within a community of like-minded is the end in itself. If this is masturbation, well, it feels more like a jerk circle than my shower stall.

Would you rather have us all join a paint-by-numbers course at the local city college?

David wrote: "I think you're [sic:] sense of outrage might be a little out of proportion.

No sense of outrage here. I think you might be reading your own feelings into mine.

If you would have read my comme..."

My fault, sorry I misinterpreted your tone.
I didn't meant that to sound as harsh as it did.

Fascinating discussion - thanks, everyone! Just to chime in with the Goodreads perspective - we have no desire to define what is or what isn't a proper book review. Conceptually, perhaps "response" would be a better word than "review." We think the beauty of Goodreads is that you can find many opinions of and reactions to a book, as opposed to just one authoritative, professional review. Some people just jot down a few words for their friends, others spend more time crafting elegant analysis, and of course, there is a wide range in between.

Including images has perhaps opened up a can of worms, but since art can beget art, images certainly can be a legitimate part of what constitutes a "response" to a book. So, for now, we're inclined to keep them as an option.

I think you're [sic:] sense of outrage might be a little out of proportion.

No sense of outrage here. I think you might be reading your own feelings into mine.

If you would have read my comments, you would know that I was questioning why it would matter, not why people would not want to allow it. I'm curious though how you interpreted the proportion of my outrage from my comments; in fact, in the third paragraph, I was downplaying the significance of all this.

Trust me. I didn't confuse wanting to allow it and enjoying it, "as many people do." That distinction is pretty clear, but thanks for the condescension anyway.

David wrote:
Again, I guess I don't understand why this matters to people. And why can't it be an "art piece"?

Does it really honk some of you people off so much that someone might not post reviews that meet your strict "authoritative" ideas of what a review is? ..."

I think you're sense of outrage might be a little out of proportion. If you made it all the way to my next line you would see that I said I don't think we dictate what people write in the review. You might be confusing the idea that wanting to allow something and enjoying it have to go hand in hand, as many people do.

I think book reviews on GR is a pretty lame way to artistically express yourself, but hey, go at it. Maybe we could have a spoiler type warning; "Not really a review, just masturbation".

I'm generally for more nudity, but I don't know that I need or want pictures at all in a book review. It's a book review, I think the assumption is that you can read and get the info you need from the words. If we can have pictures in the reviews then why not video and audio?

BunWat wrote: "Fear not. Its funny and there is zero nudity. "

Well that's good to know. Not that I mind nudity in general, but I happen to be at work. Shame on me. ;)

Fear not. Its funny and there is zero nudity.

Isaiah wrote: "I think we should all take this time out to read Mike Reynold's review of My Booky Wook...

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/54105900"

I'm kind of afraid to... ;)

I think we should all take this time out to read Mike Reynold's review of My Booky Wook...

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/541...

I guess I also don't understand why pictures and URL's are necessary in a book review, it is a book review, not an art piece.

Again, I guess I don't understand why this matters to people. And why can't it be an "art piece"?

Does it really honk some of you people off so much that someone might not post reviews that meet your strict "authoritative" ideas of what a review is?

This too shall pass, friends. The major inconvenience of pictures, links, and hopeless irrelevance will -- I hope -- be the greatest of your burdens.

There are far more regimented, undemocratic outlets for book reviews, you know... like The New York Review of Books, for example. You'll find nary a nude woman nor an iota of irrelevance over there.

Kristen wrote: "...to simply restrict the use of pictures or external links within book reviews...."

I see a lot of people excerpt their reviews from somewhere else and end: "for the full review, click here". I've linked to other reviews, including off-site reviews, in reviews I've written. And I haven't done this yet, but I've intended to get around to it: reviewing graphic novels makes more sense if you can include "quotes" which are a couple of panels of artwork.

I guess I also don't understand why pictures and URL's are necessary in a book review, it is a book review, not an art piece.

I'm all for letting people write any stupid thing they want in the review. If we censored things according to my standards there would be a lot less reviews here. Maybe this is an argument for being able to vote down reviews.

I agree with Isaiah; we didn't join GoodReads to be bludgeoned into a homogenous book club strictly defined by others. Isaiah, you would love "Digital Barbarism", by Mark Helprin.

Right. Let's not censor material on GoodReads. Parents are responsible for what their children see.

I know I'll probably get blasted for this - but it would seem that the easiest way to continue allowing freedom to write whatever blathering nonsense you want in a review - but still keep the site somewhat within the realm of civility is to simply restrict the use of pictures or external links within book reviews. Continue to allow them elsewhere (profiles, creative writing, groups, etc), just not within the body of a review. That's where most of the complaints come from anyway. It will prevent those annoying folks who use their reviews to link to their porn/Mexican pharmacy/dating service sites, and prevent the possibility of porn or pics we don't have rights to being posted, and then the reviewers can feel free to babble about ham and eggs for hours if they want.

I don't like speech being restricted - but then again I don't want to see goodreads sink into a quagmire of irrelevant porn, and juvenile fart jokes in place of reviews. Not that I'm saying either Manny or David's reviews fall into that category, but I am sure that there are individuals out there who miss the point of their reviews and in an attempt to “top” them will fly right by the limits of decency while leaving out the whole “literary talent” part that David and Manny have.

Part of the Reason that David's Giving Tree review is so fantastic - is that he is capable of being funny, vile, and brilliant all without having to post pics and links. Both David and Manny (as well as some others) stand out on this site because the AREN'T the norm. And I enjoy them that way; they add spice to the feast of goodreads info. But if all you have is spice and no meat - you end up leaving the table hungry.

As we Germans have some experience with rules and censorship let me give you some ideas from here.

I totally agree with This_is_not, Rachael and Carolyn that a minimum of standard is required even in a literature-related community. I do like freedom of speech, arts and literature and the likes but where would we end if everyone did as he likes without respecting others' feelings and beliefs? As Eric_W pointed out the Goodreads rules are not appropriate to guarantee that the communal standards are always met. So let me make a suggestion for a substantial amemdments to these rules:

(1) Every review has to be written in a way that cannot offend your children's, your boss' or your mother's feeling.

(2) You may insert pictures but only of
(i) plants
(ii) animals (with fur or feathers) or
(iii) objects.

In doubt you shouldn't.

(3) Every review has to be divided into three parts:
(i) a short summary of the book (200 words max),
(ii) a thoughtful and justified assessment with respect to language, development of characters and literary quality (300 words max.) and
(iii) a short characterization of people who you would recommand this book to (10 words max, not mandatory for 1 star reviews)

(4) Every Goodreads member is requiredto make a spell-check before posting.

(5) You may write reviews in foreign languages, but you should post them on LibraryThing.

(6) (Penalty clause) Every post that doesn't fit these standards can be published on a separate site called Badreads.

Rachael wrote: "Isaiah wrote: "But on the other hand it wasn't clear what you meant by these "communal standards" that "there have to be." Whose commune is this, exactly? And whose standards? They certainly aren't..."

In honor of your position, any reviews I add today will feature, and be restricted to, repost of this well-written but perhaps-incomplete conjecture.

There are many, many reviews I've seen on Goodreads that I personally have thought were puerile, idiotic, pointless, and -- yes -- hopelessly irrelevant, but I didn't question their right to be all of these things.

Indeed.

Computer use may be your issue; public perception of mental health issues is one of mine. :)

rivka wrote: "(It probably wouldn't help this conversation if I pointed out that MPD is not schizophrenia, and that sufferers of both disorders are done a disservice by conflating them, right?)"

Point taken. It was a poor joke.

(It probably wouldn't help this conversation if I pointed out that MPD is not schizophrenia, and that sufferers of both disorders are done a disservice by conflating them, right?)

Carolyn wrote: "Eric_W wrote: "I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I thought work was for work and not for Goodreads. It's interesting that folks are more concerned about having their supervisor see a "porn" picture (b..."

Hi Carolyn:

Sorry you took my comments personally. I assure you they were not so intended. More a general reaction to some comments made much earlier in the original thread. Perhaps I am overly sensitive to this issue. Before I retired, 18 months ago, I was CIO in addition to being the Dean of Learning Resources as well as the EEO Officer, so I was hit with a triple whammy: worried about the individual freedoms of library patrons to read and view whatever they wanted, while supervising the use of all academic and administrative computers on campus (and believe me, personal use of the computers was a BIG issue, especially downloading of movies, which sucked up bandwidth faster than you can imagine) as well as dealing with issues such as who might have caused offense to someone else or taken offense at what someone else might have done.

This thread is fascinating to me because it deals with the conflict of several "rights" -- I hesitate to use the word "right" because clearly that is subject to interpretation -- an individual's right to free expression in his or her own manner, the right of a private entity to control the use of its "property," and the overlap of the personal right of free expression into the private space of another person who, I insist, has the decision whether to be offended or not by something seen or heard.

The fourth issue, i.e., how and where people surf the net on another's dime, is an ethical one between the user and the company. I had the ability as CIO to shut down people's access to the net; I chose not to because I believe in encouraging personal responsibility and personal freedom.

Responsibility is key to the success of something like Goodreads. Manny has admitted that his posting of the graphic was ill-advised, but anyone who has read his reviews knows that he's a thoughtful, articulate, and intelligent reviewer. He was trying to say something about a book he loved!

Goodreads was certainly within their rights to remove something they thought had the potential to harm the community as they define it. That's why I posted the quotes from the terms of use.

As far as use of public computers and porn, this is a debate we had often in the library, and the IT department and rarely came to any agreement not only on what it was or what actions should be taken. (I adamantly refused to install filters -- they are not good at catching images anyway.) Generally, IT folks are for being very restrictive; librarians just the opposite, EEO folks square in the middle, so you can see why I am probably schizophrenic.

The fact is that people at public computers deserve and ought to get some expectation of privacy. I've been an advocate of privacy screens for a long time. The fact remains that what someone is doing on a public machine is no one's business except that of the individual and that of the IT department if they are degrading the network. That's also true of book reviews. If someone posts a review you don't like, click away. They should have the right to write it and have it enjoyed by their fans. Goodreads has a responsibility to clearly state what it doesn't want, how it will make decisions, and how they will be enforced. If you read my post, you will see that I was objecting to the very unclear and subjective nature of their user content section. It really doesn't help anyone know what is or is not permissible.

Hence this very valuable discussion. I apologize for my long-winded response.

Isaiah wrote: "But on the other hand it wasn't clear what you meant by these "communal standards" that "there have to be." Whose commune is this, exactly? And whose standards? They certainly aren't mine, since I disagree emphatically, and on principle."

Those are good points. Let me pose four hypotheticals to perhaps elaborate on my position…

(1) Someone posts a review that consists of nothing but an excerpt from a local telephone directory.

(2) Someone posts a review that consists of an excerpt from a local telephone directory followed or preceded by "This text is a more entertaining read than was this book."

(3) Someone posts a review that consists of nothing but the lyrics to the Addams' Family TV show on a completely unrelated book (meaning not a book of Charles Addams' artwork, not a novelization of an Addams' Family movie, not a biography of Jane Addams, etc.).

(4) Someone posts the lyrics to the Addams' Family TV show as a review of every book they read.

Which of these is completely unrelated and when she Goodreads step in? In my opinion, I'd have said the first was completely unrelated, until I began to consider the second. Perhaps the first is making the same point as the second but didn't feel the need to elaborate? I'd say the second is most definitely a review, though I personally might be a bit annoyed if it is an extended excerpt rather than a brief one. I can't see how the third is a review, but perhaps there is something I'm missing similarly to missing something in the first before considering the second? I really can't see how the fourth is a review.

Now, when should Goodreads step in? As far as I have seen, Goodreads policy whenever something is in a grey area is that it is better to err on the side of freedom of expression as much as possible. I like that policy and the way the Powers That Be keep the dictatorship that is Goodreads an exceptionally benevolent and responsive dictatorship. ;-) Even keeping that in mind, I think Goodreads should intervene in the fourth instance. The fourth isn't technically spamming, it isn't advertising anything and it isn't someone posting the lyrics on hundreds of random books at a time, but I still think it is completely irrelevant and a problem. Perhaps it is a very minor problem if only one person is doing it, but as long as it is policy to allow it, there is nothing to stop multiple people from doing it.

I've never seen reviews overly similar to any of my four hypotheticals. I've also never seen any reviews that I felt Goodreads should remove, except for those that were clearly marketing spam. I've seen several that have annoyed me and caused me to roll my eyes and grumble about that's not a review and I don't think it belongs here, but there is a difference between me having an opinion and privately wishing that the entire world would conform to my way of thinking and actually wanting anyone to act to force even a part of the rest of the world to conform to my way of thinking.

Its not the only thing Eric states and still if you are worried about spies/bots that your *work* might have to see where you go, then why risk it at all? We all know that goodreads has a variety of books and information, not just pg13 stuff. So when in doubt people really shouldnt be logging on company computers to browse the net. Which is a very valid point regardless of what *sites* you wish to browse when not on *your* computer.

The only tone I see that seems rude here is yours so far in this conversation, and I have been following this particular one quite closely as it has been interesting to say the least.

I pretty much agree with what Isaiah said also. The day things become censored here at goodreads is the day I pack my virtual bags.

Eric_W wrote: "I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I thought work was for work and not for Goodreads. It's interesting that folks are more concerned about having their supervisor see a "porn" picture (by the way, the picture Manny had linked to was not even totally nude, let alone pornographic,) on their computer than that they are not working. Hmmm..."

What I find interesting are your assumptions on this, Eric and your tone.
I posted during my lunch break, so of course I am not at all concerned about my 'supervisor' seeing me 'not working' when on my personal time (like now, for example.) Your snide comment about work time notwithstanding, I am still concerned about software/'bots/spiders etc that my employer may be running, because while I am allowed to use the computer for personal things on personal time, there are still things prohibited (like porn.)

Also, while you may not consider that picture 'porn', many people agree that nudity does not necessarily equal porn. The stage of undress of the person in the photo is irrelevant. Actually, your opinion on whether the picture is porn is irrelevant in this case. I specifically put ' ' around the word porn so as to avoid the kind of definition-wrangling you are engaging in.

The fact of the matter is, when I'm on a public or shared computer, at work or the library or a friend's, THEIR concept of 'porn' supersedes mine (and yours), especially if there might be negative repercussions from it.

With the economy as it is, the threat of the loss of a job is no small matter, though it was by no means the first or only thing I mentioned in my post, so I'm not sure why that was the only thing you found to comment on.

Gee, Michael, that's not an inflammatory example at all. It's sure to keep the discussion level after a polite little chuckle.

Anyone allowed to post (almost) anything wherever they want (almost = no advertising, illegality, and keep the questionable photos to a minimum)?

No. I don't think people should be allowed to post anything at all (illegal or defamatory material and -- of course -- plagiarism, for example), but they should be free to be as irrelevant and as off-topic as they want. (I don't think anyone here is making the claim that absolutely anything and everything should be allowed, unless I am mistaken.)

There are many, many reviews I've seen on Goodreads that I personally have thought were puerile, idiotic, pointless, and -- yes -- hopelessly irrelevant, but I didn't question their right to be all of these things. I guess I don't understand, even on an "individual" level, what's so distressing about ignoring reviews that one doesn't find useful, entertaining, and/or relevant? Have we become so arrogant that we imagine everyone and everything should conform to our standards of appropriateness and good sense? Even if it isn't in the sense of "policing" reviews, I am unclear why other people would want to endorse even your own wish of proscribing relevance.

I never said GoodReads should officially be policing these.

My wish ("If I had just one wish for Christmas...") is that the community as a whole...and we all know the "community as a whole" will never do anything in concert, so I really mean individuals...would take it upon itself to use other outlets within GoodReads for these sorts of items. I think a Group dedicated to humorous/inspired reviews of books would be quite popular; I'd probably participate it it myself.

Or should it be a free-for-all? Anyone allowed to post (almost) anything wherever they want (almost = no advertising, illegality, and keep the questionable photos to a minimum)? If someone were to post an "inspired" incestuous slash/fiction writing as a review of a Hardy Boys book (Great - I just gave someone the idea), would that be appropriate? It might be more apropos and on-topic than Manny's "review" and at the same time (if the writer were clever) use "cleaner" language than David's. Is the review the appropriate forum for such writing? Why or why not?

(To a certain extent it is unfair for David's review to have been dragged into this, because, as he states, it is an actual review of the book in question, if a bit unusual in form, and not something essentially unrelated to the book...as the first "most controversial" review on GR it will often get dragged into tangential discussions of appropriateness).

I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I thought work was for work and not for Goodreads. It's interesting that folks are more concerned about having their supervisor see a "porn" picture (by the way, the picture Manny had linked to was not even totally nude, let alone pornographic,) on their computer than that they are not working. Hmmm.

As far as the comments about GR policy. Read the Terms of Service. There is NO policy. Check section 2(v) under user content. It's a CYA statement that gives them the right to do whatever they want with no definitions as to what might or might not be objectionable.

Under the license part, you are also giving GR ownership of everything that you put on GR to do with as they please in whatever manner they wish. I quote section 3: By posting any User Content on the Service, you expressly grant, and you represent and warrant that you have a right to grant, to Goodreads a royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, list information regarding, edit, translate, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, and make derivative works of all such User Content and your name, voice, and/or likeness as contained in your User Content, in whole or in part, and in any form, media or technology, whether now known or hereafter developed, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing for any purpose at the sole discretion of Goodreads.

That being said, I love Goodreads, and I think Manny did right by posting the link rather than the image, for copyright reasons, if no other.

[xposted with David:]

I also don't think my personal opinion should be used to determine what other people are allowed to post

Rachael, I definitely noted that qualifier in your post and thought it was a responsible one. But on the other hand it wasn't clear what you meant by these "communal standards" that "there have to be." Whose commune is this, exactly? And whose standards? They certainly aren't mine, since I disagree emphatically, and on principle.

I appreciate that you are trying to walk a somewhat tenuous line, and the example of spam posted as a review is a good counterpoint. But my belligerence would have to side with David's. In almost every case, these suggestions start as well-intentioned and balloon into outright censorship or some obtuse cultural warfare. I don't think it would in a million years actually happen, but I can assure you the day we had GR telling us our reviews had to meet Not The Michael's review-like criteria and everyone else go play in the "inspired writing" sandbox, would be the day I and (I imagine) most of my GR friends packed our binary bags.

Ah, yes, but you also say quite clearly: "...there have to be communal standards to prevent completely unrelated things from being posted as reviews."

Why does there have to be? Sure, if a post is defamatory or abusive, or -- in Manny's case above -- violates the GR terms of service in some other respect, yes, it should be removed, but why does relevance need to be a criterion for review posting?

I didn't misunderstand. I just don't agree with this particular premise.

Since there seems to be a trend of taking my words out of context or putting words in my mouth, I'd like to repost something I said earlier.

Rachael wrote: "I also don't think my personal opinion should be used to determine what other people are allowed to post, but there have to be communal standards to prevent completely unrelated things from being posted as reviews. I'm not sure if this is in enough of a grey area that it should slide but since the image was removed and the text of the review wasn't touched I'm going to assume for now that someone with a degree of authority decided it was acceptable."

I believe Goodreads has intervened in the past when "reviews" were merely advertisements for unrelated products or services. I think the vast majority of Goodreads' users would agree that those were not reviews. I think there is a huge grey area of what is or is not a review and people will disagree over specific examples. I have my personal opinions on what is or is not a review as does everyone else. But, operating on the principle of third times the charm let me say once more, "I also don't think my personal opinion should be used to determine what other people are allowed to post."

I would be sad to see that go.

Fortunately, I can't imagine that any member of the Goodreads staff would enjoy having to sift through thousands of reviews to weed out the insidious, insufficiently reviewlike ones. I wouldn't wish that job on an enemy!

I have to agree, David. I don't think that reviews like yours or Manny's should be relegated to the "writing" section of GR.

People's feelings on a book, or whatever inspires them to write a review about a book, are relevant to the book it's about and should be associated with it. Their delivery may vary, but in my opinion, it still has every right to be there.

I like the fact that GR is informal and fun. I would not want GR to begin deciding whether our reviews are sufficiently review-like. I love the creativity that is currently allowed. I would be sad to see that go.